You just called Merriam-Webster silly. Do you even know what they are? They're the most well respected dictionary makers in the world. They've been making them since the 1800s. I think their word stands up a bit higher than a bunch of random websites. Just because five hundred people tell a physicist to shut up and then jump off a cliff doesn't mean they won't fall.

I think it's more your assertion that Merriam-Webster is the only "real" dictionary that is obviously "silly"

From the yourdictionary site:
"Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc."
From the freedictionary site:
"Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006"
They maybe random sites, but their sources aren't. This really is sinking in to a semantic argument which is incredibly boring and you've yet to provide any backup beyond a vaguely worded definition and what you consider generally accepted. What is it that makes Manhunt a simulator and - off the top of my head - Tomb Raider not? Or are you suggesting that is too?
That was my point, yes :).

I didn't say it was the only real dictionary, I said it was the real dictionary, since his definition was from some random online dictionary.

God damn it man... I've told you twice and you just ignore it. Alright fine, third time's the charm.
Like I said, Manhunt does it's best to create a detailed and realistic depiction of murder as carried out by the player character. That is the point of the game. It rewards you for murdering your victims more brutally. This matches with the simulation genre... You still haven't told me why it's not a simulation other than 'You don't think so'.

Confrontational, absolutely.
Aggressive, not really I tried to come over as direct.
Btw. You're from the UK so why didn't you go watch the telly to see QI XL with Stephen 'my bottom is a treasure house' Fry, like I did.

But that doesn't imply a simulation, it implies a modern computer game. You provided one vague definition, I provided 3 detailed ones - 2 of which from very reputable dictionaries, albeit sourced from random sites. Plus, you ignore the question - do you think Tomb Raider is a simulation? I've also stated it's very difficult to prove a negative, the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. You're claiming that it's a simulation but have yet to provide any solid evidence as to why it is beyond the fact that it depicts murder in a way that APPEARS realistic.
What sets apart Manhunt from any other modern video games that have advanced and detailed graphics? It's just a game, detailed and brutal yes, but these things do not a simulation make.
Fair enough. As for QI, I saw the shorter version yesterday but forgot the XL was on today. :)

I'd describe that more as a depiction rather than a simulation. A simulation does its utmost to make it seem as if YOU were the one doing everything, in a game like IL2 Sturmovik, YOU are the one sitting in the cockpit, YOU are the one looking around and YOU are the one being shot down because you didn't see that BF110 coming in from your blind spot (beware the hun in the sun!).
Compared to a game like Secret Weapons Over Normandy, you were controlling a character who was doing all that. In the cases of manhunt and tomb raider, I know for a fact that I'm not james earl cash because when I pick up shards of glass, I only ever cut myself. I also know I'm not lara croft because whilst I have a sweet arse, there's the little matter of not being a woman
it may not seem like much but the layer of abstraction of adding a protagonist character who is not YOU is what I'd define a the barrier between simulation and depiction

I honestly don't see why I should continue to answer your questions when you continue to ignore mine... not to mention the answers I give to your questions.
Now at least we're getting somewhere though. You think all modern computer games depict murder in realistic detail? Obviously that's ridiculous. You can't compare the violence of any other game out to Manhunt. It's on another level entirely. That's the point, and one I made at the very beginning of the discussion. Manhunt is a murder simulator because it realistically depicts murder in a detailed way as it's main gameplay element, whereas other games have you randomly shooting evil aliens/mutants/robots/zombies/demons/African militia. Or swinging a melee weapon at them until they run out of hitpoints and stop moving. Operation Flashpoint is a simulation because it's detailed and realistic. Far Cry 2 is not a simulation because while it is in some ways detailed it is not at all realistic to shoot a shirtless African guy in the chest with 20 rounds from an AK-74 before he's goes down. You keep asking questoins and ignoring mine, because it's "very difficult to prove a negative" fine. What makes a game a simulation that Manhunt doesn't have?

You mean to tell me you're not the girl in your avatar? The interweb is such a confusing place :\.

That's a flawed argument. I know I'm not the pilot in IL2 Sturmovik because I'm not a world war 2 pilot. Also, what's Operation Flashpoint if not a simulation?
By your definition there are no simulations but real life.

No, that wasn't my point at all. What I was saying is that games that depict actions in detail is merely a facet of modern computer games. The fact that something is displayed in detail does not make it a simulation.
As to what I think DOES make a simulation. Well, this definition does a decent job:
"a simulation should imitate the internal processes and not merely the results of the thing being simulated".
Something that does it's best to represent real world situations and model as many factors as possible involved in what's happening. With Flight Sims for example, I'd hope they'd try to model turbulence, air pressure and all sorts of other things relating to flying that I don't know about. With GTR (a racing sim) it models all manner of physics when it comes to driving. If you're accelerating through a bend and release the accelerator you lose a bit of forward momentum, the weight of the car shifts to the front and you lose traction on the rear wheels, if you don't manage this properly you spin out arse end first. THAT is what I call a simulation.
With manhunt you use the controller to move behind a subject, then hold down the button until a pre-defined animation takes over and displays a murder. It's *ever* so slightly more interactive than a horror movie. That is why it is not a simulation.

Hehe sorry Nafe, it's a much nicer image than the reality of my face...
I don't think there's any way you can realistically simulate anything unless you're in the real world using real equipment. A multi-million dollar full scale simulation of an airliner control cabin still faces the realism problem of knowing its mounted on a gimbal in a building and is being fed data rather than flying in the air.
Simulation is a very broad term that can be applied to either everything or practically nothing depending on where you draw the line. If it's a game where you're controlling a bloke running around killing people then thats simulation to some people and there's certainly a vailidity to that point of view, especially considering the definitions
simulate
verb
to do or make something which looks real but is not real:
By that definition, every single thing a computer does is a simulation, simulating an office through simulating conversations such as these, simulating naked women being in your presence or simulating shooting nazis in pretty much every second game released...
For a game like IL2, I agree that there's no way to fool, you into thinking you're a real WW2 pilot, the best it can do is help you imagine how you'd do under those circumstances and it's pretty crap at it given the fact that the pilot can do things way faster than you realistically could and there's no questions about your physical ability to alter the performance along a realistc curve. For example, there's no way I'd FIT in a hurricane, they'd have to cut the floor out and during takeoff I'd look like I was in the flintstones. I also can't move my left arm quite as fast as my right and so I'd be suffering a speed loss on any actions performed on that side.
In a gaming sense, I'd describe a simulation as a game that tries to be as realistic as it can be given the staggering limitation you're sitting in front of a monitor and using a keyboard & mouse.

I'm not the only one who can be wrong on the internet ;-)
Someone didn't answer your question? Boo friggin' hoo :-D
[Generic comment containing some idiom along the lines of "the shoe is on the other foot"]

Ok, well that actually makes allot more sense.
What? Crying isn't productive in debate. He kept telling me to answer his questions, so I told him why I'd stopped.

Back on topic (hopfully >_>) No, I don't see the technical definition of 'simulation' and such to be on topic.
It is a fact of the world that people will disagree and view things differently. If there is to be any peace we must accept that. So long as we are asking "Is it right or wrong, should they be doing this?" when forging social policy we will be part of the problem. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, what matters is who if anyone is being harmed. You can say all day that Rapelay is sick and make arguments on if it is more or less sick than Manhunt, but at the end of the day none of it matters. What matters is the game does not involve raping real people, and so long as that is true each person can make their own decision about it.
It is stupid, people like to make others go by what they think is 'right' or 'wrong' no matter how subjective it is. This is the nonesense behind oppressing people of other religions. I personally think Christianity is 'sick', but I have no right to enforce that viewpoint as social policy. It is popular to want world peace, but sadly everyone insists that it cannot exist except on their terms. They want anything that makes them emotionally uncomfortable to be gotten rid of, often altogether so it cannot even exist in private. They don't care if it truly disrupts society, though if pressed will pull ways it supposedly does or might out of their rear-end.
I see 'sick' as somewhat of a manupulative nonesense term. It has no significant meaning, but people treat it like the be all and end all what what should and should not be allowed. Sick simply means it makes you feel uncomfortable, and when you have to resort to that as the reason something ought not to be allowed you have already lost. The world doesn't revolve around you, and social norms do not make this ok. We either accept that or we submit ourselves to be endlessly ripping at each other's throats about petty nonesense.
I expect many here will not accept what I have to say. Why? Because it would mean *gasp* looking inside yourself and personally dealing with your own feelings. That is really what this comes down to. They are uncomfortable and rather than personally dealing with their own feelings, they selfishly push their own burden on everyone else. All their arguments are just to hide that fact, both from themselves and others.